'All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!'

University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.

Very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Presented to the UN Climate Summit in Marrakech, Morocco – November 2016

Key climate data highlights:

Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming

The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.

Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.

Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’

In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.

Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Introduction:

CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”

The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not ‘save’ the planet.

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!

The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”

The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”

While the climate fails to behave like the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Have heard rumors Obama’s aim is to head up the United Nations. Since the whole purpose of this climate change nonsense is to redistribute the US’s wealth to the other countries, things begin to fall into place. Obama’s whole agenda from start to finish was to weaken the US. I thought it was because he really hates our country, but now suspect a much broader and sinister plan. Wow!

Wondering Why

Obama just about pulled off by far the largest ponzi scheme ever. Just imagine him running the UN and the Clinton’s the White House. With their direct connections to the Davos Group who make no bones about setting up an unelected “World government” to dictate laws that your own democratically elected government would have to bow to. Not only would they be able to redistrubute the American wealth, they would now have their hands on the worlds.

Pete

Trump Wins! Obama is relegated back to the apple crate pushing his leftist pamphlets. The EPA will return to its original purpose. Al Gore will retire to his palatial estate in a perfect 72 degree environment year round.

Frank W Brown

Just more demoCrap propaganda, MORE and MORE scientists are realizing that the SUN is in TOTAL control of earths climate, mankind is no more than an anthill to mother nature, It’s ALWAYS been about the MONEY!!!

RicknRedmond

It has always been about control. Just like “Gun Control”. It’s about control, not guns or climate. Getting control of the means of producing power, as in oil and coal, especially oil, by legislating how and when we can produce it and then legislating how and when and how much we can consume, why then they have control over virtually all business, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture. What more could they ask for? Health care? Maybe that too. Hmmm.

Jim Scott

So do you deny that each of the last 15 years has experienced the hottest year ever recorded, each being hotter than the last? Here is the graph by the “Skeptical Science” web page. Do you think someone is tampering with temperature gauges all over the world? The reality is lots of disinformation is being propagated but it is funded by fossil fuel interests like the Koch Bros, not climate scientists who get paid the same salary whether the temperature goes up or down.

Iam Hudsdent

The counter argument to the last 15 years being the hottest, if I have it right, is that that is according to adjusted data, not raw data, which shows the 1930s as warmer (and a natural cyclical fluctuation across decades), and that the “warming” data is selective. Further, the counter argument is that the “warming” is so infinitesimal as to be inconsequential and within the margin of error. What’s more, regarding money, the vast, vast majority of it goes to man caused warming. You are basically killing your career within the scientific establishment if you challenge the status quo on climate, as is the case in other areas of science, perhaps most notably archeology, where the careers of scientists have been wiped out (no funding) for having presented solid evidence and studies counter to the accepted dogma.

It looks as though the logjam is breaking and some actual science might flow through.
What a relief.

Jim Scott

It’s just a pity the report was signed by scientists who are not climate scientists and nutcases like James Lovelock who thinks the earth will get too hot for humans but that is OK because we will have robots running the planet by then and they will survive. Good luck surviving if you listen to such idiots, most whom have vested interests.

Red47 #happy

Yep.
If it were real, these brilliant minds would be developing ways to adapt and capitalizing on that. There are plenty of signs that it is bogus without even understanding science.

CLynch451

Who decides who counts as a “climate scientist”? We outsiders–engineers, physicists, geologists, botanists, astronomers–poke a hole in the data or argument of a “climate scientist”, and their response is, “oh, you’re not a climate scientist, so nobody should listen to you”. Here’s the thing: bad math is bad math, and faulty reasoning is faulty reasoning, no matter who does it. After all the Michael Mann business, the upshot for public consumption is that, indeed, his math was wrong, but his conclusions were correct, so, there’s nothing to see here, move along, people!

Another disturbing thing is the distortion of good science into hype by the various activists looking to bolster their case. Frankly, that is the same process by which carefully quantified, measured conclusions of US intelligence agencies about Iraqi WMD were represented by Dick Cheney as a “slam dunk case”. In climate science, we see that a real scientific report might put the odds of various predictions over a wide range, but by the time it gets to the public via the legacy media, social media, and direct advocacy organizations, all we hear is “97% consensus” and “overwhelming evidence”. Indeed, those are the Big Red Flags for me: the assertion that no reasonable people disagree, and that the truth is ascertained by voting.

Bill smith

There was just a GIANT oil discovery in Texas. The first response I heard was “How will it affect our agenda.” Not good for us, or less money for terrorism but will we still be able to accomplish our plan…All these fokes are bound for hell because no matter how nice their situation is THEY WILL NOT BE RUNNING IT.

Greg Espey

yeah 20 billion barrels max. we use 9 billion a year in a recession 13 or so when everyones working…Though i agree with your statement otherwise

TheTexasPaul .

“we use 9 billion a year in a recession 13 or so when everyones working”
according to USEIJ:
In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day.2

Why are you trusting UN, IPCC, WMO, NOAA and all those corrupt instances? Follow the science. Read more about the topic. You look like a mainstream standarized lamb.

Jim Scott

Actually he looks like someone who prefers to listen to scientists rather than coal miners when it comes to science. I would say he has better judgement than uneducated conspiracy disciples who have a problem with dealing with reality.

Wondering Why

Sorry buddy, am now done reading Bill Clinton’s sermons for the past two decades. Once the EPA is dissolved and NASA gets off its “Pay for Play” politics, they and the rest of the scientific bodies will return to real science. I strongly recommend you look up the meaning of “Empirical Science”, a phrase that has been buried in left/right political bickering for the past few decades.

CLynch451

Physicists aren’t scientists?

Isabella Montague

United Nations Agenda 21
Sustainability,Global Initiative,Global Governance,One World Order! One World Currency! Deindustrialization,
Depopulation! I hope Trump keeps his promise about congressional term limits, and the 5 year ban on lobbying after leaving office. We apparently need to also remind Trump that we put him in office to “Drain the Swamp” not fill it full of people like Mitt Romney.

PARes

I’ve never understand why so many people could be tricked into thinking a trace level (400ppm) compound (CO2) could be the driver of any climate change. And it is even more unbelievable when considering that humans were blamed, even though humans only contribute approximately 3% to the total CO2 level. In other words, for one to believe in AGW (man-caused global warming), you must also believe that the 12ppm of CO2 that the entire population causes puts the Earth into the critical tipping point of ever increasing temperatures. Additionally, even if a radical, life altering 8% decrease in man-caused CO2 were achieved, it would only decrease CO2 levels by 1ppm. All that suffering to unsuccessfully try and get a lower temp when it’s more likely anyway that a higher temperature is better for human survival and comfort.